EPS ANPR PCN - ignored LOC now Claimform - - 29 sec stay! - Shoulder of Mutton , Birmingham ***Claim Discontinued***

[FTMDave]

Don't appeal!  The fleecers are only interested in £££££, they never, ever, ever accept appeals - ever.  Plus you could throw away your POFA 2012 protection.

 

As dx points out, their whole case is pants, just ignore their tripe for the time being.

 

But come back if you get a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action.

[FTMDave]

If you ignore a Letter of Claim then the fleecers generally think you might ignore a claim form too and they will win by default.

 

That's why lots of us said to come back here straight away if you got a Letter of Claim.

 

That doesn't change the fact that their case is absolute pants, just you'll now have to bat it away as a court claim rather than stopping the case from ever getting to court.  Please give us the information that HB requested.

 

 

[FTMDave]

The claim number, your address and the vehicle registration are clearly visible.  I reckon in time I could work out your name too.

 

Do you really want the fleecers to be able to I.D. you?

 

Simply following the upload guide provides links to free sites where you can redact things properly.

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, kfdh1962 said:

first of all, no response has yet been received  from Gladstone's Solicitors to my CPR31.14 request sent on July 12th 2022

Good, so later down the line in your Witness Statement you can point out that they have failed to provide important legal permissions.

 

1 hour ago, kfdh1962 said:

Other  than the claim paperwork ,   i am not currently able to locate any of the original letters sent by euro car parks (but i am still looking) so i was hoping that they would comply with my CPR31.14 request

If they don't then you can SAR them.

 

That's for later though.  It's defence time now.  Dx is spot on, look at the link mentioned, there you will find our short, generic defence.

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, kfdh1962 said:

Reading their contract, against the section entitled "free stay period" , it clearly states that non patrons have a 5 minute grace period and that charges only apply if that is breached . Time stamps on the pictures confirm just 29 seconds between start and end

This is very, very interesting.  Yes, as dx says, please upload the lot.

 

3 hours ago, kfdh1962 said:

proof of planning permission not provided (but they stated it is available if court requests it)..

Yeah, right

[FTMDave]

Ar a first glance - that is damn excellent.

 

Tomorrow is a Bank Holiday where I'm based so I'll have a proper look in the morn.

[FTMDave]

Your WS is magnificent.

 

But a few tweaks to suggest.

 

The fleecers are legally challenging the government Code of Practice about the £100 limit/Unicorn Food Tax they always add on, so you need to cut out "and the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019" in (7.5).  The whole of the last (10.5) section needs to go too.

The only change I would make would be to break off (7.3) into its own section, at the same point in the WS, entitle it GRACE PERIOD, and expand on it, as this is one of your aces.  Something like -

0.0  The order for parking management services (exhibit XX-02) defines a free stay period, against which it states that non patrons have a grace period of 5 minutes, and that parking charges will only apply if that term is breached.  Therefore, even if a valid contract existed (which it does not), no breach would have occurred as the EPS PCN identifies the time period of the alleged breach to be 29 seconds.

0.0  The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, allows (Table B.1) a 5-minute consideration period while the motorist reads the signs and decides if they wish to accept the contract offered and park. 

The Code is currently subject to legal challenge regarding (a) the amount of parking charges and (b) the addition of debt collecting costs.  The rest of the Code is not under any legal challenge, including the consideration period.
 

0.0  The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association, whose Code of Practice states (para 13): "The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes".

0.0  The Claimant is also a member of the International Parking Community who in their Code of Practice states (para 13.1) "Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land" which common sense suggests should be longer than a ridiculous 29 seconds.

0.0  Even if none of the four documents above existed, a breach of 29 seconds would be legally "de minimis".

 

I would also beef up your (11) and add at the end "A court claim for a stay of 29 seconds, contrary to numerous Codes of Practice and even the Claimant's own contract with the landowner, is vexatious".

 

If you want to look up the stuff I've quoted above, it's in

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#annex-b-consideration-and-grace-periods

 

https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

Superb spot by Nicky Boy that these charlatans are in the BPA as well as the IPC.

 

I've amended my suggestions above accordingly.

[FTMDave]

The WS looks absolutely superb.

 

Your section 11 is short, hard hitting and makes it clear why you should be awarded extra costs.

 

If the fleecers have any sense they will discontinue, especially with this extra costs threat, but you never know, their greed might push them to hang on to the bone till the bitter end.

[FTMDave]

That's absolutely fine.

 

Yes, you have to sign the WS,.

 

Do you have a court date and dater to file the WS by yet?

[FTMDave]

No problem at all.

 

E-mail the court their copy.

 

Send the fleecers theirs by 1st class post and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office, so you have proof you respected the court order.

 

Personally I'd wait till the very last minute, that way if the fleecers are late with their WS you can include a para about you respecting court orders while the charlatans do not, and request any late WS from them not be admitted as evidence.  On the other hand, if the fleecers' WS does show up, it gives you a chance to demolish it in your WS.  Win win.

 

. 

[FTMDave]

Exactly.  E-mail is enough.

[FTMDave]

Missed that.

 

Well spotted Andy.

[FTMDave]

No, it's not.

 

Andy is right.

 

When you got the order with the WS deadline, it should have been from a local court.  Again, you will have written the name of your local court on the top of the WS.

 

Google that court, get the e-mail address, and send the WS there.

 

Make sure you put the claim number and the names of the two parties in the subject field, and click on "Return Receipt".

 

 

[FTMDave]

So you live near Northampton?

[FTMDave]

Sorry to keep harping on, but it's vital we're sure the WS has gone to the right place.

 

Can you upload the order you got from the court where there was the deadline for filing the WS?

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

 

So you were right.

 

As long as the WS has gone to the Northampton County Court (not the business centre) you're fine. 

 

I see you indeed sent to Northampton County Court.

 

The national centre for the bulk sending of on-line claims is based in Northampton, so it was a bit of a coincidence that Northampton is your local court too!

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

 

I thought they would bottle given the ridiculous 29 second claim, but hey, you can never be sure and it's always better to prepare too much than too little.

 

Have a think about if you want to sue them for breach of your GDPR.  They knew full well the stay was covered by their trade association's CoP and should never have even approached the DVLA, let alone passed your data to third parties and started a court claim.

[FTMDave]

Well 99% of motorists we get here are just happy that the invoice has been written off or the court case abandoned, and don't want to take it any further.  All perfectly understandable.

 

We did have someone recently in a particularly ridiculous and vexatious case, who wanted to go down the GDPR route.  However, a mistake was made - due to the fleecing company having become part of a larger group - and the initial letters went to the wrong place.  The Cagger then disappeared.  Maybe they thought it was hassle they didn't need to resend the letters.  Just speculation.

 

So if you decide to go down this road you'll be one of very few!

 

Obviously we would help, and I don't see how the fleecers could possibly defend obtaining information to demand payment for an "offence" which their own trade association Code of Practice specifically says should not be pursued.